Colorectal surgery patient perspectives on healthcare during the CoVID-19 pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To focus on critical care needs of coronavirus patients, elective operations were postponed and selectively rescheduled. The effect of these measures on patients was unknown. We sought to understand patients' perspectives regarding surgical care during the CoVID-19 pandemic to improve future responses.Methods
We performed qualitative interviews with patients whose operations were postponed. Interviews explored patient responses to: 1) surgery postponement; 2) experience of surgery; 3) impacts of rescheduling/postponement on emotional/physical health; 4) identifying areas of improvement. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed through an integrated approach.Results
Patient perspectives fell within the following domains: 1) reactions to surgery postponement/rescheduling; 2) experience of surgery during CoVID-19 pandemic; 3) reflections on communication; 4) patient trust in surgeons and healthcare.Conclusions
We found no patient-reported barriers to rescheduling surgery. Several areas of care which could be improved (communication). There was an unexpected sense of trust in surgeons and the hospital.
SUBMITTER: Rivard SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970406 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical providers have turned to telemedicine as an alternative method to provide ambulatory patient care. Perspectives of endocrine surgery patients regarding this mode of healthcare delivery remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the opinions and perspectives of endocrine surgery patients regarding telemedicine.MethodsThe first 100 adult patients who had their initial telemedicine appointment with two endocrine surgeons were contacted at the conclusion of their visit. The survey administered assessed satisfaction with telemedicine, the provider, and whether attire or video background played a role in their perception of the quality of care received using a 5-point Likert scale. Differences in responses between new and returning patients were also evaluated.ResultsTelemedicine endocrine surgery patients stated excellent satisfaction with their visit (4.89 out of 5) and their provider (4.96 out of 5). Although there was less consensus that telemedicine was equivalent to in-person or face-to-face clinic visits (4.15 out of 5), patients would recommend a telemedicine visit to others and most agreed that this modality made it easier to obtain healthcare (4.7 out of 5). Attire of the provider and video background did not influence patient opinion in regard to the quality of care they received. Returning patients were more likely to be satisfied with this modality (4.94 versus 4.73, P = 0.02) compared to new patients.ConclusionsThis study shows that telemedicine does not compromise patient satisfaction or healthcare delivery for patients and is a viable clinic option for endocrine surgery.
| S-EPMC8712268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The urgency to curtail the devastating effects of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic has led to the implementation of several measures to limit its spread, including movement restrictions and social distancing. As most developing countries rely solely on hospital visitations for their medical needs, this impediment to assessing healthcare services compounded by low uptake of telehealth services could result in dire consequences. This is a cross-sectional study among Healthcare providers (HCP) and Healthcare consumers (HCC) in Nigeria. We administered a pre-validated self-administered online questionnaire comprising questions to assess the knowledge, use, perceptions, and benefits of telemedicine among study participants. Descriptive statistics were used to examine participants’ perceptions on telemedicine use and to summarize participants’ characteristics. A total of 158 healthcare providers and 1381 healthcare consumers completed the online survey. Ninety percent of HCP reported that they used some form of telemedicine to deliver health care, and 63% of HCC had received healthcare through telemedicine. A significant proportion of HCP (62%) and HCC (69%) agreed that telemedicine would improve healthcare consultation experience and satisfaction. However, fewer (21%) HCP agreed that they liked that there would be no physical contact with patients using telemedicine. In contrast, 52% of HCC agreed that they liked that there would be no physical contact with healthcare providers while using telemedicine. The majority of the participants believed that benefits of telemedicine would include: being a safe way for healthcare delivery during pandemics (HCP = 62%, HCC = 83%), affordability (HCP = 62%, HCC = 82%), and time-saving (HCP = 54%, HCC = 82%,). Teleconsultation services have been shown to aptly complement face-to-face hospital visits in ensuring effective triaging in hospitals and providing adequate healthcare delivery to patients regardless of geographical and physical barriers. These results support telemedicine use for the provision of healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC10021919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare workers (HCW) face tremendous challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the subjective burden, views, and COVID-19 infection status of HCWs. The aim of this work was to evaluate the subjective burden, the perception of the information policies, and the agreement on structural measures in a large cohort of German HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. This country-wide anonymous online survey was carried out from April 15th until May 1st, 2020. 25 content-related questions regarding the subjective burden and other dimensions were evaluated. We evaluated different dimensions of subjective burden, stress, and perspectives using 5-point Likert-scale questions. Moreover, the individual COVID-19 infection status, the amount of people infected in circle of friends and acquaintances and the hours working overtime were assessed. A total of 3669 HCWs provided sufficient responses for analyses. 2.8% of HCWs reported to have been tested positive for COVID-19. Nurses reported in principle higher ratings on all questions of subjective burden and stress than doctors and other hospital staff. Doctors (3.6%) and nurses (3.1%) were more likely to be tested positive for COVID-19 than other hospital staff (0.6%, Chi (2) 2 = 17.39, p < 0.0005). HCWs who worked in a COVID-19 environment reported higher levels of subjective burden and stress compared to all other participants. Working in a COVID-19 environment increased the likelihood to be tested positive for COVID-19 (4.8% vs. 2.3%, Chi (1) 2 = 12.62, p < 0.0005) and the severity of the subjective burden. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses experience more stress than doctors. Overall, German HCWs showed high scores of agreement with the measures taken by the hospitals.
| S-EPMC7437642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMicropigmentation is a well-recognised option for nipple-areola complex reconstruction, as part of the breast reconstruction pathway for patients following mastectomy. As a part of delayed breast reconstruction, this treatment was put on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic.AimsTo assess the views of patients regarding micropigmentation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether their attitudes to seeking out this part of the reconstructive journey had been altered.MethodsA questionnaire undertaken with 53 patients between August & September 2020 attending the Micropigmentation clinic.Findings81.1% of patients reported COVID-19 had not impacted their decision, with a similar proportion happy to proceed with the treatment at the time of questioning.ConclusionsThe results highlight the importance of nipple-areola complex to our patients' reconstructive journey.
| S-EPMC9225963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach.ResultsInterviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team.ConclusionsPatient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.
| S-EPMC8970158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to quantitatively assess stress, anxiety and obsessive thinking related to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and qualitatively appraise perceptions in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used mixed-methods design in patients referred for CR in 2 centres which delivered uninterrupted service during COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS), COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and in-person interviews (combination of a priori questions and probing) were used to evaluate patient experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.ResultsIn total, 109 patients (mean age 59 ± 10, 20% women) were included in quantitative part and in 30 of them we conducted the in-person interviews. About a quarter of patients met HADS threshold for anxiety and depression while CAS and OCS results demonstrated extremely low possibility of coronavirus related dysfunctional thinking (3%) and anxiety (2%). The CSS indicated the most prevalent concerns were related to COVID-19 vaccines safety (60%) and fear of getting infected (60%). During interviews, patients perceived the CR as well as health care providers as safe, trustworthy and with enough support to avoid or manage COVID-19 related health risks.ConclusionsOverall, patients reported AMI affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 related stress and anxiety were relatively low and mostly related to general views of infectious disease. CR was perceived safe and trustworthy in terms of primary disease and COVID-19.Lay summaryThis mixed-method study included 109 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 and focused on their experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.-Patients reported acute myocardial infarction affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic.-The COVID-19 related concerns were mostly related to general views of infectious disease (vaccine safety, fear of getting infected) whilst cardiac rehabilitation was perceived safe and trustworthy environment during COVID-19.
| S-EPMC11319166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation of away rotations and other experiences fundamental to orthopaedic surgery residency application. Limited information is available on the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic residency application cycle. This study aimed to evaluate the current perspectives of applicants and PDs regarding the orthopaedic surgery residency application process. This was a cross-sectional study using 2 independent but similar surveys that addressed multiple aspects of the application process during the COVID-19 pandemic, including perceived effect of virtual experiences. Between February and March 2021, the surveys were distributed to orthopaedic surgery applicants and orthopaedic residency PDs. In total, 113 applicants (20.1%) and 29 PDs (19.6%) completed the survey. Applicants applied to 97.6 programs and received 13.3 interviews. They participated in 2.4 virtual away rotations. In total, 79.3% of programs reported offering some form of virtual opportunity, including virtual away rotations (24.0%), virtual happy hours (64.0%), and virtual conferences (64.0%). Programs offering virtual away rotations hosted 46.8 rotators and only invited back 54.5% for an interview. Applicants were most concerned about the lack of away rotations, the interview, and networking during this cycle, and 51% reported less confidence in matching. The most important factors for influencing applicant rank lists were perceived happiness of residents, resident camaraderie, and geographic location. However, residency program social events were not well replicated in a virtual setting. The COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for applicants and PDs. Applicants had less clinical exposure and received less interview invites after virtual away rotations. Despite applying to more programs, applicants received fewer interviews than in previous years. The virtual experiences adopted in this cycle did not adequately replicate the social factors that applicants found most important when ranking a program. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, PDs most highly valued away rotation performance, clinical rotation performance, and board examination scores when offering interviews.
| S-EPMC8492364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to assess colorectal surgery outcomes, discharge destination, and readmission in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAdult colorectal surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2019-2020) and its colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted files were included. The prepandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The pandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 in quarterly intervals (Q2 April-June; Q3 July-September; Q4 October-December). Factors associated with morbidity and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAmong 62,393 patients, 34,810 patients (55.8%) underwent colorectal surgery prepandemic and 27,583 (44.2%) during the pandemic. Patients who had surgery during the pandemic had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presented more frequently with dependent functional status. The proportion of emergent surgeries increased (12.7% prepandemic versus 15.2% pandemic, P < 0.001), with less laparoscopic cases (54.0% versus 51.0%, P < 0.001). Higher rates of morbidity with a greater proportion of discharges to home and lesser proportion of discharges to skilled care facilities were observed with no considerable differences in length of stay or worsening readmission rates. Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of overall and serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality, during Q3 and/or Q4 of the 2020 pandemic.ConclusionsDifferences in hospital presentation, inpatient care, and discharge disposition of colorectal surgery patients were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic responses should emphasize balancing resource allocation, educating patients and providers on timely medical workup and management, and optimizing discharge coordination pathways.
| S-EPMC9868386 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:Hospitals have eliminated many in-person interactions and established new protocols to stem the spread of COVID-19. Inpatient psychiatric units face unique challenges, as patients cannot be isolated in their rooms and are at times unable to practice social distancing measures. Many institutions have experimented with providing some psychiatric services remotely to reduce the number of people physically present on the wards and decrease the risk of disease transmission. This case report presents 2 patient perspectives on receiving psychiatric care via videoconferencing while on the inpatient unit of a large academic tertiary care hospital. One patient identified some benefits to virtual treatment while the second found the experience impersonal; both were satisfied with the overall quality of care they received and were stable 2 weeks after discharge. These cases demonstrate that effective care can be provided remotely even to severely ill psychiatric patients who require hospitalization.
| S-EPMC7705825 | biostudies-literature